From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 19:35:10 EST
At 23:33 +0100 2003-11-10, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set
>of separate scripts
>where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
We haven't decided what kind of unification is appropriate for
Tifinagh entities yet.
>Byt itself, ignoring all other transliteration to Latin and Arabic, "the"
>Tifinagh scripts are already cyphers of another variant of Tifinagh script.
I think this is rather muddled.
>If characters are encoded by their names (as they should in Unicode)
>then we are unable to produce an accurate chart showing
>"representative glyphs", as no variant of the script covers the
>whole abstract character set,
>and so this would require several charts, i.e. multiple glyphs for the same
I made a chart. It was a start.
>In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among
>these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract
>character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family?
Gosh. Because Latin is a different script.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:14:31 EST